John, I died laughing. Sounds like something I would post. I am too busy being real to worry about Reality.
Mark On Oct 6, 2011, at 3:03 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Steve, > > Just trolling through a long list from the top down and I came to this and > couldn't resist... > > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Steven Peterson > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Hi Matt, dmb, >> >> If experience is reality in the MOQ, then I don't see how we would >> ever need to worry about being in touch with reality. > > > > > I know I rarely worry about it. But then I notice lots of other people > around me worrying for me. But a good example is an infant. According to > Pirsig, infants are closer to DQ than you and me, (well, you at least. I'm > fairly infantile myself) and everybody plainly sees that infants never > worry about being in touch with reality. So I think you bring out a good > point there. > > >> Likewise, if DQ >> is the leading edge of experience, then how is perceiving DQ something >> that "you" can be better or worse at? If this "you" is a set of static >> pattern left in the wake of DQ, then it is always in intimate contact >> with DQ. >> >> > I think you're putting this pragmatically and with another good point - > talking about DQ is really sort of futile, in the end. What we're really > interested in is sq. But we can't really comprehend sq without > comprehending what its not - DQ. Once we have that down, we can rest. But > the problem I keep seeing over and over, is that staticity is more nebulous > and mysterious than dynamism! So I dunno. I think I'll go play with my > binky. > > You seem to have a pretty good handle on it below. > > > John > > > > >> One important Pirsigian usage of "DQ" is talk about being attentive to >> the distinction between concepts and reality, between DQ and sq, but >> then such "DQ talk" is always conceptual. It's sq. That's the only >> "trivializing" that is going on from my view. It is part of being >> attentive to the distinction between concepts and reality to say so. >> "Talk about DQ is sq" is what I think is meant by "DQ is a compliment >> paid after the fact." That's surely one of the ways Pirsig uses the >> term. When Pirsig says that sex is pure DQ, he is wielding the >> "compliment" usage of "DQ." It is also used as a placeholder for the >> conceptually unknown and some other ways distinct from the >> "compliment" usage that might be worth cataloging. >> >> Best, >> Steve >> Moq_Discuss mailing list >> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >> Archives: >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >> http://moq.org/md/archives.html >> > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
